Search This Blog

Pages

Ideological Class Struggle in Academia?

If there is one thing that trotskyists have been extremely successful at, it is that they have become the official representatives and gate-keepers of marxism in first world academia. Thus, the academic industry of published marxist texts is largely dominated and managed by trotskyist and post-trotskyist intellectuals. Even those popular academic marxists who have rejected trotskyist orthodoxy or semi-orthodoxy are most often people whose understanding of communism has been heavily influenced by a trotskyist style marxism.

As one of my good friends and comrades has pointed out, regardless of the historical disagreements we maoists might have with trotskyism, at the very least we have to admire their ability to wage ideological struggle within the confines of bourgeois academia. At the same time, however, the fact that the already non-hegemonic field of marxist academia is dominated by a trotskyist-influenced interpretation of historical marxism is a serious problem for us academics (who are not the exceptions of Alain Badiou and Jacques Ranciere) whose understanding of marxism emerges from "that other marxism" of a maoist and/or non-western revolutionary communism. Marxism has already been marginalized in first world academia; marxist currents that are not trotskyist-influenced, or at least in accordance with that interpretation of history, are generally marginalized further.

Of course, the reason for this trotskyist academic success at the centres of capitalism makes sense. The so-called "Fourth International" was a eurocentric affair led by first world academics. A marxism that began by distancing itself from the Soviet Union, regardless of its supposedly "nuanced" claims about a deformed workers state, was palatable to a US and European context during the cold war. Then, when other first world marxist intellectuals were aligning themselves with China and other third world revolutions in the 1960s (sometimes going so far as to embark on short-lived and adventurist escapades), trotskyists generally stuck to the sphere of legality and became part of the intellectual establishment. So when the rise of maoism, which crystallized in 1993, meant that the only communists actively pursuing revolution were maoist (or at least maoist inspired), trotskyists, who have done little more than ideological struggle, didn't have to worry about losing their hold on academia.

Still, the fact remains that a trotskyist-inspired discourse––even if it is no longer precisely "trotskyist"––has been successful in pushing marxism, and thus primarily representing marxism, in the academic terrain at the centres of global capitalism. And though this trotskyist (and/or post-trotskyist) hegemony is annoying for those of us who are excluded and marginalized by its terms, it is still is something worthy of respect. It is definitely more commendable than the more dogmatic offshoots of this tradition whose idea of promoting a more religious version of the same discourse consists only of producing newspapers nobody else wants to read.

Trotsky reads a newspaper, utterly unaware that, in the future, some of his followers will do nothing but sell newspapers to other leftists.

Look at those academic marxist-oriented presses, for example, commanded by those trotskyist-influenced intellectuals: Verso and Haymarket Press. They both pump out a lot of books that are important for those of us who are interested in waging what Althusser called "a class struggle on the level of ideology." Indeed, they publish Althusser and the classics as well as the odd quasi-maoist––the aforementioned Badiou and Ranciere––and maybe a small collection of Mao's essays… just as long as the introduction is by someone whose writing is convoluted enough that he would end up making maoism seem convoluted (i.e. Zizek). At the same time, while they can afford to be magnanimous, they remain the gate-keepers of academic marxism. They sure as hell can't lead a revolution, but they know how to wage ideological struggle in academia. (Trotskyist readers, before you send me angry comments, just realize that I'm talking about actual history––it is a factual statement that, while it is true that Trotsky was a leader in the Bolshevik Revolution, no group emerging from the Fourth International has ever initiated or been involved in a significant revolutionary movement.)

So what are we maoist academics/intellectuals supposed to do when it comes to the prospect of publishing and carving out a tiny corner of academic discourse? The easy answer, obviously, would be do nothing because you should be focusing on concrete class struggle. Clearly there is some truth to this position: communists should be trying to figure out what it means to involve oneself in class struggle on a concrete level rather than becoming fully submerged in academic/theoretical work. At the same time, though, fighting to have some sort of ideological representation in the marxist academic sphere is rather important because this sphere, overly dominated as it is by trotsky-esque perspectives, needs to be utilized in order to give some meaning to the concrete struggles of actually existing revolutionary movements and Peoples Wars. We maoists have been known to complain when marxist intellectuals ignore these mass revolutionary movements––from Nepal to India––and yet we are struggling to produce very little to force the existence of these movements into academic discourse. And though it is true that these movements' success or failure is not dependent on being represented in academia, any representation helps––look, for example, at how much help to the Naxal uprisings that Arundhati Roy (who is not a maoist) has been.

More importantly, if we want to build revolutionary movements in our own social context, one of the ways to popularize said movements is to, in some way (no matter how small), involve ourselves in this class struggle on the level of ideology. Not as a substitution for class struggle itself––not to excuse ourselves from figuring out how to go amongst the masses––but as a way to popularize revolution in the sense conveyed by the concept of the war of position that I discussed in a previous post. In this way, then, I think we can learn from the trotskyists who have been very successful in marking out the boundaries of marxist discourse––even if this is pretty much the only struggle they have waged successfully, it is still an important struggle.

Hey - this is spot on for the most part when it comes to publishing but I think there are a lot of exceptions going back to the onset of Marxism entering the caverns of Academia....

1) The Monthly Review school and its offshoots (Social Structures of Accumulation, etc.) have been tremendously influential in political economy.2) World Systems Theory as well3) While Political Marxism does count some Trotskyists among its ranks, it is a direct challenge to "permanent revolution" while retaining UCD.4) The above is heavily redolent of the English Communist Party historical school, most of whom left the party in 1956 but never were close to Trotskyism at all.5) Althusser's influence was strong throughout the seventies and is experiencing a comeback. All state theory from Althusser and Balibar growing into Poulantzas is far more redolent of Althusserian thought than Trotskyism (though there has been some Trotskyists, eg Perry Anderson, who use Althusserian categories). The department of Political Science at York has only one Trotskyist, the rest are either Political Marxists or, more commonly, Poulantzian/Milibandian.6) "Indpendent Marxists" close to the CP at one point, clsoe to Maoism at another, have been far more influential than Trots in Marxist philosophy or poltiical theory departments in the US and Canada (Ollman, Meszaros, Marshall Berman).7) "Science and Society" is the longest running Marxist journal in the English language and was virulently Anti-Trotskyist, to a point of sectarianism. It continues ot have a great deal of influence, in particular around the alienation/humanism debates in the 70s, and the "Capital Logic" school now.

So while I understand your point about publishing houses, I don't think its correct to make the claim you make about Trotskyism.

I was careful to qualify that it was a "general" observation. Monthly Review might have once been extremely influential but its hallmark thinkers are far less influential––plus, the most popular MR books these days are by Trotskyist and post-Trotskyist academics. Secondly, World Systems Theory is often dismissed in leftwing academia at the centres of capitalism and straw-personed. There is a small minority of people at the first world who take it seriously; the majority of its academic supporters live in the global periphery; many of its academic quasi-supporters here are also Trotskyist (i.e. Callinicos). Althusser is making a comeback but he is also being promoted (and you did notice this) through a type of Trotskyist influenced marxism and the majority of people who interpret Althusser in academia these days are highly Trotskyist influenced. Political Marxism is heavily influenced by Trotskyism and, even though it has distanced itself from some core Trotskyist concepts (i.e. "permanent revolution"), it is still a primarily post-Trotskyist phenomena––indeed, its theory of transition to capitalism is perfect political economy justification for the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution *even if it rejects the theory of permanent revolution* (note how I also said "post-Trotskyist" as a category). I don't see Ollman and Meszaros and Berman as utterly independent but, with the exception of Meszaros, as post-Trotskyists. Finally, Science and Society has zero influence in academic marxist circles anymore, nor can it pull the influence even close to something like HM (which is staffed almost entirely by Trotskyist and post-Trotskyists)... only geeky marxist academics like ourselves pay much attention to it.

No disagreement again about publishers....but MR is still incredibly influential in PE and Marxist/Ecology circles. I don't agree that PM is influenced by Trotskyism in terms of its foundational thinkers, but that's a debate for another point (I really don't see how the Brenner/Wood transition thesis is congruent with Permanent Revolution as it has - from the beginning - been virulently attacked by Trotskyists as contradicting Permanent Revolution. Of the major figures in Political Marxism, I know of only two who are rooted in PM. I don't understand your sentence about Ollman et. al - as none of them were ever Trots (Ollman is heavily influenced by Mao, Meszaros was a follower of Lukacs, Berman was in and around CP circles). Science and Society is far less influential than it once was, true...etc etc. But the broader point is you are looking at one camp, as it were. I'd argue the whole camp around Socialist Register etc. are perhaps as influential internationally as HM and they are decidedly not Trotskyists, whatever one thinks of them. I think it is an issue around influential journals, but that hasn't stopped some friends of ours from breaking into such circles without suddenly brandishing Results and Prospects.

I plan to do a bigger post some time in the future about how trotskyist ideology has influenced the way North American and European marxists engage with the world. The point has nothing to do with whether or not someone would define themselves as loyal to Trotskyism, but just the fact that their analysis of world capitalism, transition to communism, why actually existing socialism failed, how to organize, and class composition is thoroughly affected by an analysis that emerged from Trotskyism. Ollman is affected by this in the way he sees class composition, international struggle, and the philosophy of dialectics––and he is so not influenced by any form of maoism because his open endorsement of "the advanced industrial worker is the proletariat" line is a massive departure from any form of maoism. Meszaros I already said was an exception.

The Political Marxists are virulently attacked by Trotskyists because maybe they're seen as heretics? And besides, ortho-Trots love attacking their heretics. Now the reason I say that their theory of transition dovetails, even against their wishes, with the Trotskyist way of seeing the world because the Trotskyist argument is precisely that the workers at the advanced centres have to lead the revolution whereas workers elsewhere hold the revolution in permanence... The argument is that the revolution in Russia failed was because it happened in a backwards state that didn't have a proper bourgeois revolution. Note that political marxists have often said similar things about Russia and this is *precisely* a Trotskyist analysis that emerged first and foremost from Trotskyism. Moreover, the theory of transition to capitalism implies the same logic endorsed by the Permanent Revolution.

Heretics? Perhaps....But I really don't see how a theory that explicitly rejects the schema of bourgeois revolution (and its corrollary "backwards" or "advanced" states) and places far more salience on agrarian peasant/lord relations than on bourgeois/merchants could have anything remotely to do with Permanent Revolution. I have not read any Political Marxist writing on Russia and I have never seen any of the Political Marxists make that point about Russia (in fact, I've read and personally heard them say precisely the opposite).

Indeed what attracted me to PM in the first place was its explicit rejection of stagism, drawing on historians like Meek and Polanyi. Weberian is the only charge that sticks - I disagree with it but I see how some can make hte point.

It leads to it because it implies it... The reason why the theory of transition to capitalism is so important is because it tells us something about the possible transition to socialism. The argument that capitalism could have only developed in England as a result of specific class relations (where relations of production are often reified as forces of production... i.e. class becomes a natural and essential force) implies the argument that communism can only first develop internally at those places with advanced and specific class relations. The theory of PR is usually tendered to argue precisely this about the transition to communism.

[And come on, you know that Comninel has stated that the Russian Revolution shouldn't have happened because the time wasn't right for it to have a proper socialist revolution!]

Yeah - George Comninel has said that but not in his published work. I've heard him say the opposite more recently. But Wood says the opposite, as does this book that I am reviewing right now - . And I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The argument is not that capitalism developed only in England (and to some the Yangze Delta region of China) because of specific class relations, but that specific class relations developed in England due to the unintended consequences of the marketization of rent due to the peasant/lord stalemate, producing - well after what is regarded as the transition - the "capitalist triad" of landlord/capitalist/worker. This would entail, then, that social relaitons change due to the contingent factors as dictated by the specific "rules of reproduction" to use Brenner's phrase (neccessity within contingency) - and that socialism is not developing in the interstices of capitalism, rather it is a qualitatively and quantitatively different set of social relations that requires the development of popular capacities, agency ,etc. This book makes the point well - I'm reviewing it right now - http://www.brill.nl/october-revolution-prospect-and-retrospect

I know we're veering off topic, but I don't think Wood and Brenner's theses imply "the argument that communism can only first develop internally at those places with advanced and specific class relations." I thought they were very explicit in their discussion of the transition that England in the C15/C16 was _not_ particularly advanced, even if the peculiar/specific class relations of that time/place were key to the emergence of agrarian capitalism.

We are veering off topic. I jumped a couple of steps in logic here in an effort to explain how Political Marxism is also influenced by Trotskyist ideology in a comment sized post. Trying to put a complex point into one sentence, unfortunately, does not work very well. As for saying that England was not particularly advanced, this is more the third world political economy argument than Brenner/Wood, who don't necessarily make much ado of that fact. In any case, the parallel with their theory of transition and Trotskyist theories of communist transition is something I would be prepared to argue only in a paper sized piece that draws the philosophical parallels, regardless of what economic mystification both camps want to promote... Something I did plan to work on at some point in time but not here on this blog, especially not in the comment string where complex ideas are limited by speed and length.

Sorry for this - I know its not the first time this has happened - but Jude is on point. But if the point of England not being part. advanced is third World, it is also PM - that is my point about the congruences between Amin and Wood's frameworks. The point is - that even if the theory is congruent it is not intended in such a way, and as well, can imply other theories of transition. As I've said before, I find Teschke to be the most compelling on this particular issue, as is Hannes Lacher.

Also, see Wood's Empire of Capital in which the economically advanced but non-capitalist Italian and Islamic empires are set alongside the backwards but capitalist England. As an argument, the book has striking similarities to Amin's work, though with different conceptual terminology (Wood would argue that Amin has a Smithian angle on capitalism, something he himself doesn't seem to deny)

Okay, let me be clear. I don't think there's the congruence you suggest and I don't think Wood's framework even admits to that. In fact, as I've argued before, I think PM is thoroughly eurocentric understanding of communism. Yes, I have read *Empire of Capital* and yes I do know she does have to admit the backwards nature of England, but she doesn't put the same emphasis on it as Amin. Although, as I have told you and others before, the reason I do like some things about Wood is because here and there her claims intersect with Amin's––but Amin's views intersect with others as well that he is also not the same as––and where she departs I find her work less scientific and problematic. I especially find it problematic and understanding that she claims Amin has a "Smithian" angle on capitalism which is just rhetorical garbage––that he *would* deny––and is a claim that is philosophically unsustainable. Oh, it might hold up in a rhetorical sense with some typically weak straw-personing and red-herring fallacies thrown around, but when I say it is philosophically unsustainable I mean it's an incoherent argument that lacks any internal logic. And this is also why I generally reject Political Marxism: I find it philosophically flawed as a framework for scientifically apprehending history.

I've argued this with you before, in other posts, and we always end up at loggerheads on this issue, so I would ask for you not to continue it here. Feel free to argue this with me in person. This post was not about Political Marxism but about something else; in fact, Political Marxism was only brought up here in the comments, and not even by me initially, because I wasn't interested in having this debate here. If I was, I would have posted on Political Marxism!

I apologize - I got carried away (I didn't intend on the debate either)...But just to make clear "Smithian" is not pejorative (and indeed Amin does use Smithian categories, like many influenced by the Monthly Review School), just as Wood et. al use Weberian categories.

But let me add one more point before we end up in a tangent about PR and Political Marxism. My general argument is that Trotskyism exerts an enormous influence in first world academia in the way that the categories of marxism are approached. In fact, the Trotskyist way of seeing things is often taken as normative even if its main and orthodox theories are rejected––*especially* when it comes to an analysis of the Soviet Union, Stalin, and why communism failed. You brought up a good point about Socialist Register, but on the whole I still say that Trotskyist categories and a heavily Trotskyist-influenced understanding of marxism abounds.

Your argument is interesting, Josh, but you would have to be more clear about what constitutes the "Trotskyist way of seeing things" separate from its main, "orthodox" theories. What remains of a Trotskyist world-view emptied of its central propositions? How can a theory/organization/school of thought still be called "Trotskyist" if it categorically rejects the central ideas of what's traditionally called Trotskyism? I mean, I think I get where you're going here--a dialectic of orthodoxy and heresy which binds mutually hostile groups together. But you need to be more precise.

Agreed. As I said to Jordachev, I am planning to write something about that in the near future. It will be a more involved entry, though, than this ranty semi-planned one. I also don't think the influence necessarily abandons its central propositions, just some of its more popular ones (note, however, that I was careful to qualify that post-Trotskyist and Trotskyist-inluenced marxism was part of this).

This entry was one of those ones that was only half thought out and primarily designed as space filler: based on a long-standing frustration of mine, it ended up raising more questions than it answered and, because I wanted to think through the questions it raised, I decided to deal with these questions in a more a thorough manner in a later post rather than just rewrite what was something of a stream-of-consciousness essay. More of a rant than anything else, really, that began with something I wrote a month ago and just saved in my "drafts" and, to be truthful, wasn't planning on posting but figured, oh what the hell.

Yeah, but probably not immediately after this one. I don't want to be become the stereotypical maoist who just hates on Trots all the time, lol... I try to avoid veering into more actual sectarian territory: one of the reasons I didn't post this one was because I felt it was a little too sectarian in some places––though I did think it was important to note that Trotskyists have a history of waging ideological struggle in first world academia that should be noted. Really, it was just about that more than anything else but, as has become clear from the comments, ended up becoming more interesting because of the questions it raised rather than addressed.

So though I will plan to follow up on this, I think I'll post on a bunch of other things first. Don't want to overdo the complaining about Trotskyism!

Wasteful and ignorant. I get tired of these analyses about the Chinese Revolution and maoism by Trotskyists whose groups have done nothing revolutionary, and will continue to do nothing revolutionary––especially the Socialist Workers Party which has turned into little more than a social democratic organization with radical sounding phraseology and that has never done anything more militant than tail initiatives by others and attempt to take coalitions over.

How someone can begin by talking about how the Maoists are active and a serious threat to the establishment and then go on to demonstrate an utter ignorance of what Maoism is, and to trot out (hehehe) the typical bad historical analysis of the Chinese Revolution to show what maoists are really about (again I emphasize, the Chinese Revolution was not "maoist"... it was Marxist-Leninist and "maoism" as a third stage of revolutionary communism came later) is little more than an exercise in revisionism. Really, it's counter-revolutionary because it's primarily a critique from the right and not a critique from the left.

The fact that the speaker refers to herself and the SWP as "revolutionary socialists" is also quite humorous––especially since the SWP has never really tried to think up how to make revolution in Britain and the countries it has dropped, like an old school British imperialist, its members into. Organizing demos and giving parade routes to the police, calling militants agents, tailing organic movements but offering no revolutionary direction, infiltrating and ruining coalitions… Revolutionary socialists indeed!

Great post, JMP. I found the humor of the picture's caption to be absolutely hilarious. And this article's topic and points are most important to me as a Maoist intellectual/academic myself. I realize that most of the discussion in the comments so far has been on philosophy and political science departments. I am a historian and I have found a very similar prevalence of Trotskyists in Marxist historiography.